← Library
Madras High CourtWP/2027/2025withdrawn dismissed

D.Sukhi Bai v. The District Collector

2025-01-24Honourable Mr Justice M. Sundar,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.01.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and W.M.P. Nos.2361, 2362 and 2363 of 2025 in W.P.No.2027 of 2025 D.Sukhi Bai ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai - Kanchipuram Rd., Thaiyar Kullam, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu 631 501.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Kolappakkam Circle, Kundrathur, Kanchipuram District.

3.The Tahsildar, Mehta Nagar Main Road, Kundrathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 069.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent with respect to the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.NO:COLKPM/3523/2024/Aa3 issued by the Page Nos.1/10

1st respondent under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and consequently, quash the same as illegal, invalid, arbitrary and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently, forbear the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the property admeasuring 1600 square feet situated at Plot No.7A Mettu Street, Rajarajan Nagar Main Road, Moulivakkam, Chennai - 600 125 and comprised in Survey No. 18/10.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for Mr.Anirudh A Sriram For Respondents :

Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] After some arguments, Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel representing Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) but made a request to resuscitate the statutory revision under Section 10-A of 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} together with a stay petition thereat under Section 10-B of said 1905 Act, as according to learned counsel for writ petitioner, the revision and stay petitions Page Nos.2/10

which were filed on 26.12.2024 were erroneously withdrawn on 20.01.2025 (on erroneous understanding of the scope of Section 10-A of said 1905 Act).

2. Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

Page Nos.3/10

3. Considering the request for resuscitating of the statutory revision and the stay petition thereat, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents before acceding to the request.

4. Issue notice to respondents.

5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all three respondents. Learned State counsel has no objection for resuscitating the revision and stay petition.

6. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned State counsel submits on instructions that there is a batch of statutory revision petitions pertaining to other similarly placed persons. Learned State counsel submits that enquiry was held on 22.01.2025 and it was preliminary in nature and that further enquiry will be held on another date for which the notice setting out the date, time and venue would be issued to the writ petitioner and other similarly placed revision petitioners. A scanned reproduction of the communication in this regard placed before us by the learned State counsel is as follows: Page Nos.4/10

Page Nos.5/10

Page Nos.6/10

Page Nos.7/10

7. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP and the captioned WMPs thereat are disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with resuscitation of statutory revision with stay petition and preservation of rights in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Though obvious, we make it clear that captioned main WP is disposed of as withdrawn and as it is not disposed of on merits, the resuscitation request of the writ petitioner is acceded to on not being objected to by learned State counsel would mean that the statutory revision would be tested on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this withdrawal.

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 24.01.2025 Index : Yes / No mmi To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai - Kanchipuram Rd., Thaiyar Kullam, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu 631 501.

Page Nos.8/10

2.The Revenue Inspector, Kolappakkam Circle, Kundrathur, Kanchipuram District.

3.The Tahsildar, Mehta Nagar Main Road, Kundrathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 069.

Page Nos.9/10

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J., mmi 24.01.2025 Page Nos.10/10